MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS revision by the delinquent teacher is against the order of the educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 13-11-1988 passed rejecting his application i. e. , I. A. No. II under section 151 of the CPC filed in E. A. T. No. 5 of 1995 praying for a direction to the respondent-Management to pay him the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the last pay scale drawn by him till 16-5-1996 and at the rate of 90% from 16-5-1996 onwards. ( 3 ) THE material admitted facts are that petitioner had been working as a teacher in certain educational institution of the Management. Certain charges of misconduct were alleged against him. Contemplating disciplinary enquiry of those charges he was placed under suspension by the respondent-Management under its memo dated 15-5-1995 with effect from the said date. That suspension memo was challenged by him before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, bangalore ('the Tribunal' for short) in said E. A. T. No. 5 of 1995. Pending final disposal of his appeal, I. A. No. II was made by him praying for a direction to the Management to give him the subsistence allowance to which he is entitled during the period of his suspension. ( 4 ) A photocopy of the memorandum dated 18-9-1995 that was served on the delinquent by the Management along with the Article of Charges is produced by the learned Counsel for the Management to show that at paragraph 5 therein, the delinquent was informed that he is entitled to subsistence allowance during his suspension at amount equivalent to 75% of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension and the additional dearness allowance if any, as per Rule 13 of the Karnataka private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 ('the Rules' for short ). But then, he was not paid the said allowance and was not entitled to the same because, being involved in the commission of offence under Sections 323, 427 and 506-B of the IPC alleged to have been committed by him on 30-3-1995 in Crime No. 133 of 1995 of yelahanka Police Station, he had been absconding and was not residing at the place of his residence, since in that event, he would be disentitled to such allowance by virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules. ( 5 ) THE material portion of Rule 13 of the Rules reads:"13. Subsistence allowance during suspension. ( 5 ) THE material portion of Rule 13 of the Rules reads:"13. Subsistence allowance during suspension. (1) Every employee placed under suspension shall be entitled to the following payments, namely, (a) Subsistence allowance at an amount equivalent to seventy-five per cent of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension, the additional dearness allowance, if admissible, on the basis of the amount of such subsistence allowance: provided that where the period of suspension exceeds twelve months, the authority made or deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of first twelve months as follows: (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased to an amount equal to ninety per cent of the pay drawn immediately prior to the date of suspension if in the opinion of the said authority the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing not directly attributable to the employee; (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance to be reduced by suitable amount not exceeding fifty per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first twelve months, if in the opinion of the said authority the period of suspension has been prolonged due to the reasons to be recorded in writing directly attributable to the employee; (iii) the rates of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or as the case may be the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clause (i) or (ii): provided further that when an employee is convicted by a competent Court and sentenced to imprisonment, the subsistence allowance shall, pending the result of an appeal to a higher Court, be reduced to the nominal amount of one rupee per month and the question of paying him pay or allowances either in full or in part for the period of conviction and sentence till the decision of the appellate Court in the event of an appeal being filed may be considered by the Board of Management after the appeal is decided. (B) Each claim, for subsistence allowance should be supported by a certificate by the employee concerned to the effect that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the period to which the claim relates. Rule 14 deals with "leave while under suspension". (B) Each claim, for subsistence allowance should be supported by a certificate by the employee concerned to the effect that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the period to which the claim relates. Rule 14 deals with "leave while under suspension". Sub-rule (1) thereof is not relevant. It is the aid of sub-rule (2) which was invoked by learned counsel for Management in support of its contention that by virtue of this provision, the petitioner delinquent was disentitled to subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. This provision reads: "14. Leave while under suspension. (1) XXX XXX XXX. (2) No payment of subsistence allowance shall be made unless the employee continues to reside in the station where his office is situated or in the station in which he is permitted by the authority which made or which is deemed to have made the order of suspension". ( 6 ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the Management that the petitioner had left the place of his residence as he was absconding in the said Crime No. 133 of 1995 of Yelahanka Police Station does not commend for acceptance. No other material has been brought on record indicating that any enquiry by the Management was held independently to ascertain if the petitioner had not been residing at the usual place of his residence the address of which was furnished to the Management at the time of his entry into service, nor is it the case of the Management that the subsistence allowance to which he was admittedly entitled to under Rule 13 was sent to him at the address of his residence for any particular month during the period of suspension and that the same was returned undelivered with any endorsement of the concerned that the delinquent petitioner was not residing at the said address. Therefore, this contention had to be rejected and it should have found favour with the Tribunal. ( 7 ) NEXTLY, it was maintained that the petitioner failed to put forth his claim to the subsistence allowance along with his certificate to the effect that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the relevant period of claim. ( 7 ) NEXTLY, it was maintained that the petitioner failed to put forth his claim to the subsistence allowance along with his certificate to the effect that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during the relevant period of claim. It is not the positive case of the Management that petitioner was engaged in any avocation or pursuit during his suspension period and, therefore, he forfeited his claim to subsistence allowance under Rule 13. So, this objection becomes merely of technical nature which could not be successfully set up by it as a defence to thwart the legitimate claim of the employee for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension which he badly needs for maintenance of himself and his family. Therefore, the petitioner could even now be permitted to produce the certificate contemplated by clause (b) of Rule 13 (1 ). In that view of the matter, the Tribunal had no sufficient legal justification to decline the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the Management to promptly pay him the subsistence allowance at the rate admissible under Rule 13 without any further delay. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Petitioner's LA. No. II filed in E. A. T. No. 5 of 1995 before the Tribunal is allowed. The Management is directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner at the rate admissible under rule 13 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978, within one month from this date failing which t he amount so payable to him shall be recovered from the Management by the Tribunal by following the procedure for execution of the money decree laid down in the CPC on an application to be made by the petitioner. --- *** --- .